NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER vs NVIDIA Rubin GPU Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data shows a stark contrast between these two NVIDIA parts, and it is not a conventional consumer versus consumer comparison. The GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER is a fully benchmarked graphics card with ten recorded scores, while the Rubin GPU has no benchmark entries at all in the database. This immediately defines the competitive landscape: the RTX 4080 SUPER wins every measured test by default because it is the only one with recorded measurements.

The RTX 4080 SUPER demonstrates its strengths across the entire testing suite. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, it posts a score of 6600. Its Geekbench OpenCL result reaches 219065, and the Vulkan score climbs to 260075. The PassMark suite shows a G3D score of 34245, a GPU compute score of 19822, and a G2D score of 1270. Legacy DirectX tests show scores of 381 for DirectX 9, 301 for DirectX 11, 193 for DirectX 10, and 134 for DirectX 12. These numbers place the card at the 86th percentile among all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 54209.

The Rubin GPU, by contrast, has an empty benchmark array. The database records its percentile as 50 and its average score as 0, which reflects the absence of measurements rather than actual performance. The Rubin part is a server accelerator with no display outputs, no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan API support, and a TDP of 2300 W. It is not designed for the same workload class as the RTX 4080 SUPER, so the lack of benchmark data is expected.

The win count confirms the split: winsA is 0 and winsB is 0, meaning the head-to-head benchmark list is empty. The RTX 4080 SUPER wins any comparison only because it has data to analyze. The Rubin GPU cannot win any measured test because none exist. This is a qualitative difference in product category, not a performance verdict.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two chips is substantial. The RTX 4080 SUPER uses the AD103 chip on the Ada Lovelace architecture, built on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It contains 45,900 million transistors on a die size of 379 mm², giving a transistor density of 121.1 million per mm². The Rubin GPU uses the GR100 chip on the Rubin architecture, built on a 3 nm process, also at TSMC. It contains 336,000 million transistors on a die size of 1456 mm², yielding a density of 230.8 million per mm².

The memory subsystems are entirely different. The RTX 4080 SUPER uses 16 GB of GDDR6X on a 256-bit bus, delivering 736.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The Rubin GPU uses 288 GB of HBM4 on a 16384-bit bus, delivering 22.1 TB/s. That is a 30-fold increase in bus width and a 30-fold increase in bandwidth, though the exact ratio of 30 is derived from the recorded figures. The memory clock differs as well: the RTX 4080 SUPER runs at 1438 MHz with 23 Gbps effective, while the Rubin runs at 2695 MHz with 10.8 Gbps effective.

Compute resources diverge sharply. The RTX 4080 SUPER has 10240 shading units, 320 TMUs, 112 ROPs, 80 RT cores, and 320 tensor cores. The Rubin GPU has 28672 shading units, 896 TMUs, only 24 ROPs, no recorded RT core count, and 896 tensor cores. The FP32 throughput is 52.22 TFLOPS for the RTX 4080 SUPER and 130.0 TFLOPS for the Rubin. For FP16, the RTX 4080 SUPER delivers 52.22 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, while the Rubin delivers 260.0 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio.

Clock speeds tell a story of different design goals. The RTX 4080 SUPER has a base clock of 2295 MHz and a boost of 2550 MHz. The Rubin has a base of 700 MHz and a boost of 2267 MHz. The lower base clock on the Rubin suggests a power-constrained design, and the TDP confirms it: 320 W for the RTX 4080 SUPER versus 2300 W for the Rubin. The Rubin is an SXM module with no power connectors listed, while the RTX 4080 SUPER is a triple-slot card with a single 16-pin connector.

The production status also differs. The RTX 4080 SUPER is end-of-life, released on 2024-01-30, with a successor in the GeForce 50 series. The Rubin GPU is active, released on 2025-12-31, with no successor listed. The Rubin's predecessor is Server Blackwell, while the RTX 4080 SUPER's predecessor is the GeForce 30 series.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Rubin GPU has 28672 shading units, compared to 10240 on the RTX 4080 SUPER. The Rubin also has 896 tensor cores versus 320 on the RTX 4080 SUPER.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Rubin GPU delivers 22.1 TB/s over a 16384-bit HBM4 interface with 288 GB of memory. The RTX 4080 SUPER delivers 736.3 GB/s over a 256-bit GDDR6X interface with 16 GB.

Q: Does the Rubin GPU support DirectX?

A: No. The database lists DirectX as N/A for the Rubin GPU, along with OpenGL and Vulkan as N/A. The RTX 4080 SUPER supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor density?

A: The Rubin GPU has a density of 230.8 million transistors per mm² on a 3 nm process. The RTX 4080 SUPER has 121.1 million per mm² on a 5 nm process.

Q: What are the benchmark scores for the Rubin GPU?

A: The database records no benchmark scores for the Rubin GPU. Its average benchmark score is 0 and its percentile is 50. The RTX 4080 SUPER has ten recorded scores, averaging 54209.

Q: What is the pixel rate comparison?

A: The RTX 4080 SUPER has a pixel rate of 285.6 GPixel/s, while the Rubin GPU has 54.41 GPixel/s. The RTX 4080 SUPER also has 112 ROPs versus 24 ROPs on the Rubin.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every recorded specification field. The table below lists only the fields where values differ.

| Field | RTX 4080 SUPER | Rubin GPU |

|---|---|---|

| Series | GeForce 40-series | null |

| Chip | AD103 | GR100 |

| Architecture | Ada Lovelace | Rubin |

| Generation | GeForce 40 | Server Rubin (Rxx) |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 3 nm |

| Transistors | 45,900 million | 336,000 million |

| Die Size | 379 mm² | 1456 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 121.1M / mm² | 230.8M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 2295 MHz | 700 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2550 MHz | 2267 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1438 MHz 23 Gbps effective | 2695 MHz 10.8 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 16 GB | 288 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6X | HBM4 |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 16384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 736.3 GB/s | 22.1 TB/s |

| Shading Units | 10240 | 28672 |

| TMUs | 320 | 896 |

| ROPs | 112 | 24 |

| RT Cores | 80 | null |

| Tensor Cores | 320 | 896 |

| Pixel Rate | 285.6 GPixel/s | 54.41 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 816.0 GTexel/s | 2,031.2 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 52.22 TFLOPS | 130.0 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 52.22 TFLOPS (1:1) | 260.0 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 320 W | 2300 W |

| Slot Width | Triple-slot | SXM Module |

| Power Connectors | 1x 16-pin | null |

| Suggested PSU | 700 W | 2700 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 6.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 1x HDMI 2.13x DisplayPort 1.4a | No outputs |

| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | N/A |

| OpenGL | 4.6 | N/A |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | N/A |

| Dimensions | 310 mm 12.2 inches length | null |

| Production Status | End-of-life | Active |

| Release Date | 2024-01-30 | 2025-12-31 |

| Predecessor | GeForce 30 | Server Blackwell |

| Successor | GeForce 50 | null |

| Launch MSRP | 999 USD | null |

| Percentile | 86 | 50 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 54209 | 0 |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark list is empty, so there are no direct comparison scores. The RTX 4080 SUPER has its own recorded benchmarks, and the Rubin GPU has none. This means the only quantitative comparison comes from the nearest rivals of the RTX 4080 SUPER.

The RTX 4080 SUPER sits at an average score of 54209. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080, scores 54247, a delta of -0.1 percent. The AMD Radeon Pro W5700X scores 54828, a delta of -1.1 percent. The AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB scores 55698, a delta of -2.7 percent. The AMD Radeon 8060S scores 55757, a delta of -2.8 percent. These deltas are small, indicating the RTX 4080 SUPER is closely matched with its immediate competitors.

The largest win for the RTX 4080 SUPER in its own benchmark suite comes from the Geekbench Vulkan test at 260075. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 219065 follows. The 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 6600 is the only modern gaming test, and it shows strong DX12 performance. The PassMark G3D score of 34245 places the card well above the G2D score of 1270, indicating compute-heavy workloads benefit more than 2D operations.

The Rubin GPU has no scores to compare, so the head-to-head section cannot walk through any wins in its favor. The data indicates the RTX 4080 SUPER is the only part with measurable performance in this pairing. The Rubin's 130.0 TFLOPS FP32 and 22.1 TB/s bandwidth are impressive specifications, but they are not benchmark results. The absence of any recorded test means no performance claim can be made for the Rubin GPU.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear distinction based on product category. The RTX 4080 SUPER is a consumer graphics card with ten benchmark scores, an 86th percentile ranking, and an average score of 54209. It is end-of-life, but its measurements are complete and verifiable. The Rubin GPU is an active server accelerator with no benchmarks, no display outputs, and no consumer API support. Its 2300 W TDP and SXM module form factor indicate a data center role.

For anyone selecting a GPU for measured graphics workloads, the RTX 4080 SUPER is the only option with recorded data. Its nearest rivals are all within 2.8 percent of its average score, meaning the competitive field is tight. The RTX 4080 SUPER trails the AMD Radeon 8060S by 2.8 percent and leads the RTX 4080 by 0.1 percent. These margins are small.

For server compute tasks, the Rubin GPU offers specifications that dwarf the RTX 4080 SUPER in raw throughput. Its FP32 of 130.0 TFLOPS is more than double the 52.22 TFLOPS of the RTX 4080 SUPER. Its FP16 of 260.0 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio is five times the 52.22 TFLOPS of the RTX 4080 SUPER. Its memory bandwidth of 22.1 TB/s is 30 times the 736.3 GB/s of the RTX 4080 SUPER. These are architectural advantages, but they come with no benchmark verification.

The verdict from the database is straightforward: the RTX 4080 SUPER is the measured performer, while the Rubin GPU is an unmeasured specification sheet. The choice depends on whether the user needs validated consumer benchmarks or theoretical server compute capacity. The data cannot validate the Rubin GPU's real-world performance, so its selection rests on its recorded specifications alone.